I know this puts the discussion out of easily tangible terms, but trading down is bound to be part of our work in April. PC and JS love their late round draft collateral, and for good reason. They were sorely tempted to trade down from #14 instead of taking Earl Thomas. They looked pretty resolved to trade down in the 2011 draft, and three separate deals fell through (still believe that James Carpenter was a resulting panic pick). This year, they hopped down two spots with each of their first two picks in order to grab a late-rounder from each.

So even if this is a good year to be drafting right where we are, Seattle's scouting abilities makes trading down a not-unlikely option. More likely than not, Seattle will trade down somewhere.

I don't usually draftbate like this, but I'm torn as to whether Seattle should stay put and target one of the impact players in the late first, or try to transform their early 20s pick (no, we're not going to the Super Bowl) into two late second or early third picks. I'm leaning towards the first, because quality still has greater effect than quantity, but Seattle is less supported at some positions than many people realize. WR and TE have no depth and frankly no playoff-proof stars either (SF might well expose this), OLB and both guard spots are up in the air due to long-term injury concerns, a stud DT could revitalize this defense, and Chris Clemons isn't getting younger. We could use a Patriots-style draft (assuming we draft better than the Patriots do).

To me it is simple and it really doesn't matter on the year or position you are picking. It is dependant on how the draft unfolds ahead of them. Like you said, had Earl Thomas not been available in 2010 and they had been faced with ANY of the other available players left, they would have traded down. If the value is too good to pass up when you are picking (especially when you have the flexibility to go BPA) you take that player. If you're not seeing the value, you look to trade down and find value later (which JS and PC are extremely good at).

I may be wrong... but I thought in 2010 they were all set to move down because they felt for sure Philly would take Earl Thomas... and when they didn't, they mailed in the pick right away?

I'd also argue against Carpenter being a panic pick. I think more likely they were zoned into 2-3 players at that spot... two of which left the board (Solder, Watkins) and Carpenter was next man up. Probably tried to trade down to get him a little bit later, couldn't and just made the pick anyway.

theENGLISHseahawk wrote:I may be wrong... but I thought in 2010 they were all set to move down because they felt for sure Philly would take Earl Thomas... and when they didn't, they mailed in the pick right away?

I'd also argue against Carpenter being a panic pick. I think more likely they were zoned into 2-3 players at that spot... two of which left the board (Solder, Watkins) and Carpenter was next man up. Probably tried to trade down to get him a little bit later, couldn't and just made the pick anyway.

No English, you are correct about that. Earl was literally the only player left that would have made them not trade down. Sometimes the draft plays out in weird ways and it just so happens things go your way and you get great value at your pick....this was one of those drafts.

I think the lower Seattle picks, the higher the odds of a trade down. In most drafts you see the cream of the crop dry out in the late teens to early 20s. Consider some of the notable players that went in the 20-25 range in recent years:

After #25, there have been a few nice picks (Devin McCourty, Doug Martin), but it seems like every year there is a bit of a talent cliff somewhere in the early to mid 20s.

I think Seattle will appreciate that, and if they are picking say 22nd, 23rd, or 24th, there is a good chance that a value too good to pass up could prevent a trade down. If they are picking in the thirties, then yes, a trade down would make a lot of sense because the talent pool is comparable between the very late 1st and early 2nd in most draft years.

As we have a much more solid base and better depth at most positions than we have had before Carroll-Schneider's first 3 drafts I'm hoping they're thinking more about trading up to get a real difference maker, presuming they think someone Coleman, Patterson, Ogletree or AN Other would be an upgrade at a key position.

I don't see Schnieder trading up unless there is a big impact guy the really want, saying that and seeing how we have been built and not traded up as of yet when we sucked I don't think we would trade up period, John likes to aquire not give away.

Also as we have improved we have less spots that players are going to make a impact on. You expect a 1st rounder and second rounder to be starters or major contributors, this can carry over to the third if it's a high round pick. After that role players depth and development guys typically as the league standard.

We have been anything but a league standard as far as where our picks versus contributions have come from. Still I can see Pete and John looking at players more now then ever that may fit a scheme and usage that other teams think are marginal, guys that have all the tools but are in a bad system or used differently then we would use them, guys that may have been hurt, guys that Pete knows about that didn't get played in a position where he would have played them.

Pete and John are now at the tail end of the Hands on evaluation period from when Pete was at USC, they will now be forced to be more traditional in how they get much of there information, this could level our bust success rate going forward.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

Seattle has an interesting situation this Spring. They already have as many as 10 draft picks, depending on how this year's trades work themselves out. They have a loaded 53 man roster and they just had a preseason that saw several promising young players get cut simply because the team didn't have room for them. In particular: Corderro Law, Vai Taua, Rishaw Johnson (brought back on 53 man roster), Josh Portis, Korey Toomer, Jermaine Kearse (brought back on 53 man roster), Ricardo Lockette, and DeShawn Shead (back on 53 man roster) were all guys that would have made almost any other roster after the amount of talent they had displayed (in Portis' and Lockette's case, last year).

Making Seattle's roster is very tough right now, and if Seattle drafted 10 players, I'd only expect 5 or so to actually make the cut. That brings up an interesting question. Which is better- trading down and adding talent by volume or using those excess picks to move around in the draft and grab players with higher draft grades? Normally the "by volume" approach is a total no-brainer since teams tend to have plenty of roster spots open for talented prospects. But Seattle doesn't. On the flip side, trading down is about more than getting more players- it's more chances at striking it rich. If Seattle had fewer picks in 2012, they likely wouldn't have Scruggs or Sweezy. If they hadn't had that extra pick for Kris Durham in 2011, maybe they walk out of that draft without KJ Wright or Richard Sherman. If they don't have that pick for EJ WIlson in 2010, maybe they walk out without Kam Chancellor. It's a bit of a domino effect.

I think as long as PC/JS aren't afraid of feeling wasteful, you can't go wrong trading down, at least if you know what you are doing and have a strong track record in the mid to late rounds.

pehawk wrote:Could it be time to pull a Falcons, and nab a Julio type? If there's even that type of player in this draft?

It was a little concerning that SF's secondary, albiet a talented one, was able to cover the Seahawks WR for 10 seconds at a time. That shouldn't happen.

I'd rather just draft a whole lot of WR's and see if we hit on one, as Kearly said. WR's have a high bust rate in the 1st as well (I know, everyone says that). We could easily nab an Antonio Brown or such and some solid depth, rather than draft a WR in the 1st round who has a 50/50 chance of being Julio Jones/Charles Rogers, and who sucks up all of our later rounders.